Logical Reasoning

PT112 · S3 · Q8 Essayist: Knowledge has been defined

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Essayist: Knowledge has been defined as a true belief formed by a reliable process.

Definition

True belief formed → Knowledge by reliable process

Objection

If someone was using the process of clairvoyance to reliably come to true beliefs, we wouldn't call that knowledge. (this is trying to show the definition is wrong, by pointing to a counterexample that matches the trigger but not the outcome)

Defense

You're right, we wouldn't call clairvoyance knowledge under my definition, but not because the definition is wrong. It's because clairvoyance doesn't actually fit the trigger: we don't count it as a reliable process. If we did, then it would fit the definition and we would think of it as knowledge.

Evaluate

The author partially agrees with the objection. He agrees to the objection's premise that true beliefs acquired through clairvoyance would not count as knowledge. But disagrees with the objection's conclusion, that this therefore shows the definition is flawed.

He explains that the putative (supposed) counterexample of clairvoyance is not really a counterexample, since it doesn't satisfy the trigger of the definition (since we don't consider it a reliable process).

Goal

Look for something like .

8.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the essayist's method of defending the definition against the objection?

  1. Correct

    asserting that the objection is

    Why this is right

    Did the author say, the reason for the objection is our belief about the reliability of clairvoyance, not about this definition of knowledge? Sure, the author said, I agree we would reject (object) to these claims, but we would do so because we really do not believe in clairvoyance as a reliable process. The author asserted that we object because of our beliefs about the reliability of clairvoyance. The final sentence is elaborating that this definition is not the problem, because were we to think that clairvoyance were a reliable process, it would satisfy the definition and we would happily accept calling it knowledge.

    Skill tested: Method · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    72% picked this

  2. asserting that the case of

    Contradicted

    The author "agrees that we would reject a clairvoyant person's claim to know certain things based on this power". In other words, "You're right --- if a clairvoyant person claims to know XYZ via clairvoyance, we'd say you don't know XYZ." Our author thinks that clairvoyance is not a case of knowledge. He only thinks it would switch to being a case of knowledge if we were to switch into considering it a reliable process.

    13% picked this

  3. arguing against the assumption that

    Contradicted

    The author accepts (in a plural first person pronoun) that "we really do not believe in clairvoyance as a reliable process". He's not arguing against that assumption. He accepts the assumption that clairvoyance is unreliable.

    1% picked this

  4. explaining that the definition of

    Out of Scope: personal choice

    The author never says the definition is a matter of personal choice. The author is defending this definition against an objection, saying that a supposed counterexample isn't really a counterexample. But he never explains that "how one defines knowledge is really up to them".

    1% picked this

  5. demonstrating that the case of

    Not a Case of "Reliable Process"

    So, so close. The author demonstrates that, the case of clairvoyance is not a case of reliable process and thus does not fit the definition of knowledge. The author does acknowledge that clairvoyance is not a case of knowledge, but that isn't part of defending the definition. The defense of the definition comes when the author says, "the reason clairvoyance isn't knowledge is because of reliable process, not because of bad definition."

    14% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free